Monday, May 20, 2013

UPDATE 6/1: This entry was edited to place the postings in chronological order for easier reading. Sprocket.

UPDATE 5/23 Obtained correct spelling of last name of defense witness #1.UPDATE 5/21 4:40 PM Special thank you to T&T reader Lynda, for pointing out spelling and editing errors.Much appreciated.UPDATE 5/21 12 NoonAfternoon entries are fully edited for accuracy, clarity and spelling.UPDATE 5/21 10:30 AMAfternoon entries were edited for accuracy, clarity and spelling.UPDATE 5/21/13 The transcript of the audio of the serving of the search warrant for Park's fingerprints has been uploaded to T&T's SCRIBD account. You can find it HERE.

6:00 AM PT
At
the close of court last Friday, Judge Kathleen Kennedy ordered the
jurors back at 9:30 AM. DNA Analyst, Annette McCall, with the Orange
County Coroner's Office is still on the stand under direct examination.
Friday, Judge Kennedy mentioned that even with the day off tomorrow,
there is the possibility the people will finish presenting their
case-in-chief today. I will have an update when I reach the 9th Floor
of the Criminal Justice Center.

This article in Mail.Online
has some factual errors regarding the prosecutions opening statement
and factual evidence, but it does have a few photos of Park in the
courtroom.

9:00 AM PT
I'm
on the 9th floor hallway. I just received a copy of the audio
transcript of Santa Monica detectives serving the search warrant for
Kelly Soo Park's fingerprints. As soon as I get home tonight, I'll
upload the complete document. Member's of Juliana's family are here as
well as a few people from Parks support team. I rode up on the elevator
with DDA Beth Silverman, who is prosecuting Lonnie Franklin, Jr., aka
the "Grim Sleeper." There must have been a pretrial hearing in Dept.
109 on the case since I saw Franklin's two defense attorneys exit Dept
109 soon after I sat down on a hallway bench.

From 9:22 AM to 11:00 AM9:22 AM
Patricia and Greg Redding enter their courtroom with a young man, who is probably Juliana’s brother.

Det.
Thompson is already here along with Park’s defense team and DDA
Okun-Wiese. There are not as many member’s of Park’s family here
today. The front row is filled with friends and members of Juliana’s
family. Brian Van Holt who testified on the first day of trial is here
sitting with Juliana’s family. The bailiff is at his desk having a quick
bite to eat.

I don’t see the many girlfriends of Juliana’s today.

More people enter the gallery and take a seat in the back row.

Park
enters and makes a point to greet many of her supporters who showed up
today by touching them on the shoulder. She’s wearing a light aqua
shirt, un-tucked into her black pants. Park’s husband Tom Chronister,
arrives moments after her. Chroniser usually is carrying a backpack
with him as he is today.

Okun-Wiese steps in for a
quick hearing in another case so Park leaves the defense table and joins
her husband in the second row on the end. 9:33 AM
The bailiff informs Judge Kennedy that they are missing one juror so she leaves the bench.9:35 AM
Park is fanning herself with some papers in her hand. The courtroom is often cold but this morning it’s a bit stuffy.

Jane Robison from the DA’s Media Department arrives and sits in the back row.9:36 AM
The bailiff informs the clerk, Lori that “We’re ready.” The late juror must have arrived.9:37 AM
Bailiff
calls the court into session. Judge Kennedy takes the bench and
announces that all parties are present. Park, her defense counsel and
the prosecution team stand for the jury. 9:38 AM
Our witness, Annette McCall enters the courtroom and waits to be called. She’s called.

Is there a term called transfer, in respect to DNA?
Yes.
What is that?
Explains
transfer and how it can happen. You touch an item, or someone comes
along and touches an item you’ve touched, and transfers your DNA.

DNA
diminishes after time. There isn’t a particular time frame. The hotter
it gets, it will degrade faster. Washing can diminish DNA. Can’t say
specifically how much has to be left, to be transferred.

Studies
have been done on transfer DNA. There different studies that have
different conclusions as to transfer. Some have good conclusions, and
some have not.

People’s 53. She identifies the item as
coming from the crime lab with her initials and date of when she opened
the package. She puts on gloves before she removes the item from the
envelope. Two items inside. White tank top. Another is a sealed
envelope sealed by Ms. Burke.

When she received the
tank top, she took two swabs and ran it along the length of the tank
top. From the front and back of tank top, received mixtures from two
individuals. Major contributor Juliana Redding could not be excluded.
The other DNA profile was from a female.

Conclusion of
the neck swabs, there was a minor DNA female profile. The neck swabs and
the unknown female profile on the tank top were consistent with each
other.

Did the DNA typing on the cell phone. Refers to
her notes. Did the ProfilerPlus amplification and testing. For this
item, she didn’t handle the swabs, she just put the extraction through
the system. Her conclusion was there was a mixture from at least two
females. Juliana Redding could not be excluded. The major female
profile, was consistent with the unknown profile from the neck and tank
top. She used ProFiler Plus CoFiler were the test kits she used.

The tank top, she used ProFiler Plus and IdentiFiler test kits later on. IdentiFiler is what they currently use in the lab now.

She
also tested the DNA collected from the stove knob. Peopl’es 49. This
is a swab from the right stove knob. Identifies how she recognizes the
item. Puts on new gloves again, and opens the package. Two sticks
inside the package.

When she receives packages,
they’re sealed. If not sealed, she would take a notion. Of any item she
tested, all the seals were intact on the packages. She tested the
swabs using ProFiler Plus and CoFiler. There was a mixture of two DNA
profiles. Juliana could not be excluded as the major contributor, and
the minor contributor matched the other tested items.

At
the time she tested the items, she did not have a known profile from
someone to identify the minority profile. She had excluded all the
females that had been tested through this point.

Later
she received additional items later. She tested for blood on an item on
a latent print card. And evidence from a vehicle. Between 2008 to 2012
for all the items was when she tested them.

She came
up with a DNA profile from the blood drop on the latent print card in
March (?) 2009. People’s 101. Envelope, contains a latent print card
and identifies it.

I observed a possible apparent
blood, I pulled it back and tested it for blood. That was positive then
swabbed the card for blood and tested it. She has experience with
latent prints and would be able to tell if the tape on the fingerprint
had been pulled back prior to her doing so for testing.

She amplified and tested the blood.

The
latent print card amplified using ProFiler and CoFiler. This was a
single source profile. Did not get any indication there was a second
profile in this sample.

Did it appear to you it could
have been transfer? It was round and circular stain. A transfer stain,
would be more of a swipe verses a round drop.

That profile, did not match any of the comparison DNA’s that she had previously.

The profile that I obtained with the blood stain, was consistent with the profile of the other items she tested.
Profile appeared to be the same?
Yes.

She
received a reference sample in July 2010 of Kelly Park. Ms. Burke
obtained it originally. She scheduled this sample for amplification
and typing. IdentiFiler kit was used.

Came up with a
profile. I went and compared it to the previous samples she had
obtained. Compared it to the blood stain. Conclusion after comparison?
I determined that Kelly Park could not be excluded from the source.
Did you determine the probability?

Came up with a frequency estimate, based on her findings. Based on population frequency estimates.

Blood
on the latent print card, what was the frequency? The frequency of
choosing at random, on latent print card. is more than 1 in
one-trillion. The lowest average of all the things we’re looking at.
Not even one trillion people on earth.
Correct.
To get to a trillion, would have to add 3 more billion people on earth?
(Yes.)

Compared profile of Park to cell phone. Park could not be excluded. Frequency is more rare than one in one-trillion.

Compared
profile to the right stove knob. Results of that testing. Park could
not be excluded as the minor contributor. Frequency is more rare than
one in 20 thousand.

Compared to the tank top. Park
could not be excluded as the minor contributor from the back and front
of the tank top. Frequency is more rare than one 200 (million)
individuals.

Neck swab. Kelly Park could not be
excluded as a minor contributor from the neck swab. Frequency more rare
than 1 in 300 million.

Interior front door handle swab. Received this evidence and tested.
Received this item at a later date?
Yes.
Pulls out the evidence and identifies it.

Compared
swabs from door handle to Park. Kelly Park could not be excluded.
Frequency rarer than one in one-trillion. Profile of minor contributor
could not be determined. There was too little DNA to develop a profile.

Prepared
a chart of all evidence she tested. Large chart. Summary of findings.
She did not create this specific table that’s up on the screen. She did
check the graph to make sure it’s accurate.

Explains
the chart and the columns. Item #; Description, DNA # it’s assigned
when cut out item to take out the DNA evidence. Unique number assigned
to an item. The rest of the columns are the LOCI. Everyone have these
LOCI on their DNA. Explains the columns and what the numbers mean.

Explains that she makes her determination if there is a mixture, she looks at the data, not this chart.

She
also tested other items, Somewhere between 40-50 items of evidence.
Tested approximately 40 individuals. Blood drop or saliva from mouth is
a direct sample. Secondary samples are from items.

Other
items she tested, she only found Juliana Redding. There were items she
tested where a full profile could not be obtained.

Are fingerprints unique to an individual?
Yes. Twins would not have the same fingerprints.
Was that a typical latent print card?
Yes.
It appeared not to be disturbed (when she received it for testing).

Cross by Kassabian.

Questions about DNA testing in more detail as to how it’s performed.

First put the item in a small tube with a reagent to break open the cells. Explains what a reagent.
Asks what a nucleus is.
DNA
is released from the nucleus and put in a smaller volume of liquid.
They concentrate it down to 10 micro liters. less than a drop.

That’s the process that you call DNA extraction, right?
Yes.
Next step is Quantitation
Yes.
They take about a micro liter of that drop.

That is put in with reagents, that look for a particular location on the DNA to determine how much of the DNA we have.

Amplification, is the molecular copying process.

They use commercial kits to target the location on the DNA?
Yes.
On the specific loci, of the DNA molecule?
Yes.
You used specific kits (names them)?
Yes.

Does he amplification do anything else with these molecules?
It just copies them.
Does it have a dye it puts on the molecules?
Yes.

Explains that process of putting the dye on the molecules.
Scientists call their machines, instruments.

Detailed questions as to what the instruments do, and the reports that are generated.

Electropheragram,
(sp?) it’s a graph with a peak onto it. It comes with a couple numbers.
One identifies the allele, and the strength of the allele, or the
“height” of the peak.

You can end up with no result, a single person result, or a result with more than one person.

If you see 3 or more peaks at one or more loci, they know they have a mixture.
Correct.

Different
people can have the same genetic markers at some spots, but unless they
are identical twins, they won’t have the same markers at all the loci.
Correct.

Park watches her counsel as he crosses the witness.

Uses the example of a phone number that many numbers could be made from the phone number.

If the peak is taller, it means it has more of that allele, than that of the smaller peak.
Yes.

She can’t say for certain that someone is a contributor. She can say they are a possible contributor.

Now asks about transfer. Cells on the surface of the skin, do not contain a nucleus.

Might find the DNA of someone who touched an object, or might not find any of someone who touched an object.

With sneezing, drinking from a glass or sweating, they leave a huge amount of DNA behind.

If you use towel in bathroom, can leave DNA behind.
You could, we don’t know how much.
Someone could come along, and get that person’s cells on their hands.
That’s possible, yes.
Or they could use that towel, to wipe an object, and the DNA could get on that object.

It’s possible. It’s also depends on how much DNA is on my own hands as we..

Can you tell the method of deposit, of the cells.
I can not tell how that DNA got there.
I can’t tell if it came from primary or secondary. Possibly tercherary, but would not make a determination.

Can you tell how long cells from DNA have been on an object.
Cannot tell.
You would not be comfortable rendering an opinion?
I would not.

I’m
betting the jury is bored out of their minds. This type of testimony
is fascinating to me, but for most people, it’s boring and complicated.

They
have a threshold when they analyze their DNA. It’s 100 RU’s. It
represents the strength of the DNA. Sometimes they see peaks, that are
between 50 and 100. They could be real alleles, but they cannot be
confident in reporting.

They could be, bu they can’t be confident of the DNA.

Swabs from Redding’s neck. Ms. Park can’t be excluded as the minor, correct?
Yes.
Asks
about the test on the neck, and if she found alleles, on the neck, that
tested over 100, that are not matched to Ms. Redding or Ms. Park.

I try to see if any jurors are taking notes, and I can’t see that from where I’m sitting.

Sees on D3 allele, a number 17.
Ms. Redding is not a 17 at D3.
Ms. Park, is she a 17 at D3?
She’s not a 17.

So,
would it be fair to say, that, there is an allele 17, a type that was
above threshold in your testing, at D3. And there were some, below
threshold peaks (on the neck swab sample)?
Looks at her report.

(The
DNA analyst who testified in Lazarus explained that when you just have
one or two alleles that show up on a test, and alleles that are below
the threshold, and nothing else, that’s static. Static doesn’t make up a
full person.)

Now later test. August, 2010.
Any alleles, still below 50 that could not come from Ms. Park or Ms. Redding?
Yes.
17/18 below 100 but above 50.

DNA from at least one other that was in the sample.
If those allele,s are in fact, DNA.

Now asking about the right front stove knob DNA results.
People in the gallery yawn.

Tom Chronister takes notes while the witness testifies.

ProfilerPlus, WBA and FGA has two alleles that are two low.

17 allele at WBA
20 allele at FGA
At D3, a 17, it was too low, it was a poor shape of a peak.
That 17 could not have come from Ms. Park or Ms. Redding.
17, 20, and 17 at D3, could not have come from Juliana Redding or Ms. Park.
If those are true alleles.

Did not know the source of the DNA on the stove know, just knew that it was DNA.

Concentration similar to Ms. Park on the stove knob, was (weak).

Are you aware that fireman touched the stove knob when he entered the crime scene.

There is no male DNA on the stove knob.

Lets look at the tank top.
When
tested sample with ProFiler plus kit, did you detect any alleles that
were above the 100 threshold that could not come from Ms. Park or Ms.
Redding. My notes say it’s at B11.

McCall: So we are talking about the exterior, front tank top, only. ProfilerPlus only?
Yes.

Jurors are sitting back in their chairs. Some rock.

Yes. There are three locations that are below threshold, but above 50.

Three alleles at three loci that did not come from Redding or Park.

More questions about results from another test that indicated random alleles that did not belong to Redding or Park.10:59 AM
Judge Kennedy takes the morning break.

From 11:15 AM to 12 Noon11:15 AM
Back on the record. Ready for the jurors.

There are three redheads on the jury

#21 Annette McCall is still on the stand.

Cross continues by Kassabian.

Swab on the front tank top.
Tested first with ProFiler Plus kit.
Same front tank top, did you find any alleles that were below threshold, but above 50? Exterior front tank top.

McCall asks, Just ProFiler?
In either.
I
don’t see anything below threshold in IdentiFiler, that doesn’t account
for Park or Redding. In the other testing, she has 16/17 at one loci,
and that’s below threshold. In ProPlus at one loci, has a 12 allele,
that isn’t either Park or Redding
Another allele, that is not Park or Redding, but above 50.

Swab of back of tank top. Find any above 100 units, that were above threshold, that did not come from Ms. Redding or Ms. Park?
One allele in ProfilerPlus that was not Park or Redding.
That was allele 12 at Loci D13?
Yes.
In
that same sample, (in any testing kit) did you detect any alleles that
were below threshold, but above 50, that could not have come from Ms.
Redding or Ms. Park?

I try to stretch my back out, but I’m unsuccessful.

D8 had a below threshold allele. 15, above 50
D21 had one as well. below threshold, but above 50.

Had three alleles that did not come from Ms. Park.
That’s correct, if the below threshold are true alleles.

Now asking about the cell phone.
Couldn’t exclude Ms. Redding or Ms. Park.
That’s correct.
Can you tell us whee on the cell phone it was collected?
I can not say that. (She didn’t swab the items.)
(Milligram and a half of DNA.)

We’re talking about, somewhere between 200 or 250 cells.

200-250 cells is enough to test, correct?
Yes.
Did the crime lab run an reference sample of Ms. Brooks?
Yes.
Ms. Brooks did not match the samples from Ms. Redding’s neck, etc.,
Correct.

Frequency estimates questions.

She looks at all the alleles of all the known (contributors).

Loci (? name of locus), can’t do a statistic at that loci, for Ms. Redding?
Didn’t run Ms. Redding’s type at that loci?
That’s not necessarily true.

There’s a value for a major female, there, but Ms. Redding’s value was not entered there, no.

Cross ends.

Redirect begins.

This process is used every day.
(Yes.)
During the testing process, when you’re identifying, if something goes wrong, are you alerted of that?
There are controls in the system, that alert them.

In
your, statistics, you state, that, the frequency of choosing this
defendant, with this profile, but your words are, this profile is more
rare than one in one-trillion.

So, when we’re talking
about the cell phone, where there is a mixture, the possibility of
choosing someone at random, is one in one-trillion people?
The
frequency is more rare, than one in one0-trillion for more than one
contributor. She didn’t find, that profile, on just one item, correct?

That
profile was present on several items. Consistent with profile on cell
phone, the front and back of tank top, the neck, the front stove knob,
and interior of front door.

Didn’t find the profile at one location, you found it on six, correct?
Is that unusual, to find that much DNA in one location?
Objection! Vague!
Sustained!

You
testified, that under the right circumstances, DNA can last forever,
and that if kept in a freezer, DNA can last until a later date?

Now, about DNA kept in a controlled environment?
JK: Do you know what that means, a controlled environment?

What about a tank top, that is being worn, is that a type of environment that would keep DNA for a long period of time.
It just depends on if it’s kept in a cool dry area, then it could be on there for a while.
What about a door, that is used by several individuals>
It depends on where the door is, and how many people would have access to it.
And you would say that a neck, is not an area of the body where DNA would keep or last for a long period of time.
(True)?

Explains the threshold for determining DNA.
Threshold under 100, it’s possible it could be an allele, but it could also be something else as well.

Questions about threshold alleles, over 100, could those be the result of transfer.
That’s possible as well.

Question about firefighter possibly wearing gloves touching the stove handle if he would leave DNA behind.
If there is no DNA on the exterior of the glove, no.

Questions about the random allele that met the threshold on the neck, that did not belong to Redding or Park.

Okun-Wiese puts up a graph on the overhead that shows how the strength of the alleles show up.

Going over loci VWA, and the extra allele there is a 16/17. The 16 is below threshold, and the 17 is above threshold.

Sometimes, the peak is not sharp, they cannot be confident that it’s an allele.

Questions
about the frequency calculations of a particular profile, and other
threshold standards that are used to include an allele grouping.

Is it uncommon to have another person’s allele on you at a low threshold?
It’s not uncommon to find low level DNA.

She tested several reference samples and secondary reference samples.
When she compared those to the items of evidence of this case. Was it uncommon to find an allele at a specific marker?

Graph up on screen.

At bottom, it says, Rutledge and Brooks. Ms. Rutletge 17. Ms. Brooks 16 At that location.

Goes back over the big chart, Report of Evidence Examination and DNA Typing and how the chart is read.

Redirect ends Recross begins.

Just
to clarify something in redirect, that, if possible a reference sample
matches an evidence sample in one allele at one loci, you can’t
determine anything?
That’s correct. ... I would have to see more of that DNA throughout the profile.

Is loci D3 on that chart?
It is but it’s not labeled correctly.
You still have 102 in front of you? That exhibit fails to list D3 data on it?
That’s correct.

Nothing further from direct or cross. Witness excused.

22 ERIN KELLY

2006-2010 Real estate agent.
Do you know the defendant?
Through business deals, yes.
Was there a person you were working with?
Dr. Munir Uwaydah.

Worked with Dr. since 2004
Worked with Park since 2006.

Worked with her on behalf of Dr. Uwaydah.

Direct ends. Cross.

Work with Dr. Uwaydah was... (I miss question).

Cross ends redirect begins.
Did you ever speak with Ms. Park on phone?
Yes.
Receive documents from Ms Park?
Yes.
Did you receive emails from the defendant?
Yes.

I was working as his real estate agent. She was working as his mortgage broker.

Witness is excused. Court breaks for the lunch recess at 12 Noon.

1:25 PM
Up
on the 9th floor, waiting for court to open. Defense attorney George
Buehler is pacing back and forth. There are two groups standing around
in the hallway. One consists of Park's family and supporters. The other
is Juliana's friends and family. People keep arriving. I see another
pretty girl arrive and hug one of Juliana's supporters.

1:30 PM to 3:00 PM 1:32 PM
The
jurors are called into the courtroom. The courtroom is almost full this
afternoon. The first two seating rows are packed with family and
friends of the victim and defendant. There are some people from the
general public in the gallery.

23. Gerald Lukiewski

2009-2010 Manager, Ventura County Business Bank.
(T&T readers can learn more about this witness from THIS
pre-trial prosecution motion. This motion to introduce 1101b witness as
evidence of similar crimes by Park was denied by Judge Kennedy.
Sprocket.)

I was introduced to her from a business man, Martian Chung (sp?)

He was directly introducing you to defendant Kelly Park, or someone else?
He introduced me to a number of people, including Kelly Park.
Was there a Mr. Uwaydah?
Yes there was.

Approximately May 2009 through 2010. Met with the defendant 25 times or more.
Was she with Uwaydah? (Not every time.)

Met with them together about 10 times.

Was aware the defendant had been arrested. Did no speak to her again after her arrest.

I don't believe there was any cross of this witness.

People recall Jennifer Zychowski

11. Jennifer Zychowski

She remains under oath.

Showing
her People’s 101. This is an evidence envelope, relating to the
fingerprint card. Puts on gloves. The fingerprint was recovered on
March 17th, 2005. She did write on the back of it. She wrote on the back
J1/LT 25291012

She describes a diagram on the back of
the card. It's a circle on the back of that card, and within that
circle another circle and an X.

That would be a sketch of the item that the print was lifted from. And where the lift was taken from, from that item.

Big circle, little circle within, and an “X” with a circle around it.

Introduces
into evidence, a fingerprint card of Park, front and back. Page 3 is
an image of the right palm. Page 4 is the left palm.

Writing
on the bottom of the 10 print card in red. The witness sees her
initials as well as others whom she identified. Initials placed there
after comparison.

Okun-Wiese asks if there is a particular order where people place their initials.
It’s personal preference where they initial.

There were 10 unidentified prints at the scene. Compared those prints to Juliana Redding.

We
received her prints from the coroner’s office. The quality of the
prints were poor quality. We received right thumb print from DMV.

Was able to compare those unidentified 10 prints, to the DMV. Four of those were Juliana’s right thumb print.

Quality
of the prints was poor. Was not able to determine that the remaining
prints to Juliana. Unable to do that due to the quality of her skin
when her prints were rolled.

Would like to mark a 10
print card- from the coroner’s office. People’s 106. That was the
coroner’s card. Witness explains the poor quality.

In
this case, the rolled inked impressions were lacking in a lot of detail.
And that’s due to the deterioration of the skin, and due to the fact
that they were taken after death.

Another exhibit,
People 107. Right thumb print, printout from DMV of Juliana Redding.
Used this print to compare with the latent prints. It was a good
quality print.

While at the scene, did you locate any keys belonging to Juliana Redding?
I did.
Photo up on the scene.

Keys are located in bottom left corner, next to the door.
Did not locate a Louis Vitton key chain in her search of the residence.

When
you found what you thought was a blood drop on the fingerprint card,
in addition to Detective Thompson, did you notify anyone else?
Yes.

When you were there at the scene, was at any time Karen Thompson (there)?
No she was not.

Cross.

People’s 104, you testified about a diagram on a fingerprint card. Did you find that fingerprint?
I did not.
Did you have personal knowledge of where it was found?
No I do not.

Also testified regarding a photo of keys. Do you know who’s keys those are?
No I do not.

No more cross. Witness excused.

24. Mark Miner

Police Lt. for City of Beverly Hills. In 2008, assigned to Beverly Hills high tech crime unit.
Police
Officer for 27 years. Tech crimes examination. Outlines his training,
to download information from cell phones. Testified as an expert in
digital forensics about four times.

Re, Juliana's
Blackberry, the witness was asked to pull as much information out of the
phone as possible. So they could review phone logs and Internet
history. Identifies cell phone he examined for Santa Monica PD. Santa
Monica Detective John Henry asked him to examine it.

Was
able to download and review information for a later date. At the time,
used a program called Blackberry backup manager, which represents the
contents on the phone. Also used a program called ABC Blackberry to
view the data.

People’s 67, 12 page document.

That would be a print out from an ABC Blackberry report. This is a portion of the information that he downloaded.

The
phone number is identified. The user enters that information. Date
& time is the particular local time on that blackberry.

Goes
over the other information on the report. Flips to the last page.
There is a call placed to 911. The call was user initiated. The report
indicates the call lasted:

0 hours
0 minutes
0 seconds

911 was dialed, but never connected. That would indicate, that there was no connection to the cell phone provider.

Another document. That’s the same thing. Same program used to create a print out of call history in the cell phone.

Highlighted area.

Numbers. See the 911 call.
Other calls after the #17 on the report, which was the 911 call.

That time on the call is 9:52 PM. He verified that was the correct time.

The 911, shows up on the phone itself.

A friend of Juliana’s in the front row becomes emotional. A few other friends of the victim become emotional as well.

When a call is dialed, but not sent, and the call doesn’t go through, will that show up on cell tower records?
It will only be in the phone’s history.

Direct ends and George Buehler gets up to cross.

Put up another exhibit, with the 911 call.

Judge
Kennedy admonishes someone in the gallery who’s phone or computer is
making noise. She states she can’t have that. I look up, startled. I'm
worried she thinks it's me, and my computer.

All it suggests, is that it was attempted, it didn’t connect. Sometimes, when we make a call, it doesn’t connect.

In
order for this to appear, 911 had to have been called, or it could have
been a speed dial call. I don’t know if speed dial was set up for this
number.

One of the things, is the speed dial could have been hit accidentally?
Yes.

If
the call connected to the closest tower, then it would have connected.
If a call doesn’t go through, it’s possible that the phone can’t reach a
tower.

It should only be, less than a few seconds to connect (to a tower).

Nothing further, subject to recall.

DDA asks for a sidebar.

Okun-Wiese is opening a sealed package with defense and Judge Kennedy there.

Kelly
Duncan, who testified for the prosecution, is back in court for the
afternoon session, along with another girlfriend who was here last week.
Kelly is wearing a pretty, turquoise print dress. She leans her head
on the shoulder of her friend. There are several new young faces, most
likely friends of Juliana siting with Duncan and the other friend who
was here last week.

People in the gallery fidget. The
court reporter asks Mr. Buehler to speak up at the sidebar with the
Judge. Tom Chronister is watching the counsel intently. DDA Okun-Wiese
goes back to her desk to retrieve some papers. Judge Kennedy has her
arms crossed in front of her chest. Buehler looks over the papers, and I
can here some conversation, but not make it out. Park looks down at
the defense table. Park quickly glances back at the gallery, then has
her head down, as if she’s looking at something on the table in front of
her. Now she looks straight ahead.

People call detective Thompson. Her hair is pulled back in a french braid.

25. Karen Thompson

Police
officer in Santa Monica, assigned to the detective bureau. 15 years as
a police officer. Assigned to detective bureau 9 years. She became the
lead investigator in the case July 1, 2009. She was not the initial
lead investigator. Back in Sept. 2008, the lead investigator was working
on a large investigation, and she was part of the skeleton crew, back
at the office for this case. She knew there was some DNA and she started
looking at the case. When she started looking at the case, a suspect
was not known, just knew there was a female suspect. Started collecting
DNA from people that knew Juliana, to compare those profiles against the
DNA collected at the scene.

Reference sample is if I came to you and asked you to provide a sample.
Secondary sample, is if the water bottle you had sitting on the table, if you abandoned it, I would pick it up and test it.

Some
people didn’t want to give a sample, so obtained secondary sample.
Obtained a lot of secondary samples from wine glass, cigarettes, straws,
towels. She even swabbed a cell phone.

About how many?
Obtained 42 samples. She personally obtained about 17-18 of those samples.

Did any match the profile found at the scene?
There was only one woman who could not be excluded.
All the other 41 were excluded.

Did you get a sample of the defendant’s sister?
Yes.
Was she excluded?
Yes she was.

Details
how she became aware of the defendant. Became aware of Uwaydah, and
that the victim had a relationship with him. So started looking at
women associated with him.

Saw that Uwaydah was stopped
while driving and the Calif ID card, had given officers, had a "contact
Kelly" with a phone number on the back of the card.

So
started looking into Kelly Park, linked to the phone number on the ID
Card, and also found Park through public records search.

Other
women, that she related to Uwaydah, she obtained reference samples
from. All but one, Natalie Vasquez. Spoke to her on the phone and
eliminated her as having any contact with Juliana.

Did original investigators send evidence to be tested by Orange County Crime lab, and she continued with that?
(Yes.)

She
took some samples to Crime Lab. Items would be sent in batches, they
would have to be calculated as to how many hours, then it would go all
the way up to Sana Monica City Hall for approval.

Obtained a cigarette butt from the defendant. Sent to lab on December 2nd, 2009. Got a report from lab?
Yes mam, I did.

That was the report that the defendant could not be excluded as contributing the DNA.

I
needed to develop a strong case. Started to do more investigation.
Search warrant for DMV records for thumb print. Also applied for a wire
tap. Wrote a 100 page document to get a wire tap. Wrote the search
warrant to get her fingerprints.

Ultimately obtained her fingerprints after (Detective) Bambrick met with her. Applied for a wire.

Yes, to attempt to gain information about the crime. That was two years after the crime.

Also
acquired bank records, to see how much she was paid by Frontline
Medical. That was a nineteen-office medical association, operated by
Dr. Uwaydah.

People’s 109. Document. Its a document
from the year 2008. Next page of document. That’s the same document (2nd
page) from 2009. Frontline Medical, and it lists the officers, for Dr.
Uwaydah.

Requested the defendant's personal bank
account, from Bank of America ending in 180. Also account ending 2149,
Sherwood Financial Investments. Revealed this business was associated
with her (Park). There were documents recovered from the defendant’s
home in a search warrant about Sherwood Financial and she was to be
contacted.

Bank Records.
Asked for a specific time record?
First of January 2008, until end of December, 2010.

Did you interview Edan Rutledge (sp?)?
No, I don’t think I ever interviewed Edan Rutledge. I think the first time I spoke to her was in this courtroom.

Do you know if Ms. Rutledge worked at Primitivo? (Yes.)

Interviewed another friend of Juliana, a coworker.

Booking photo of the defendant entered into evidence.

CROSS by Buehler.

Good afternoon detective.

The
subpoena the bank records you described, and identified various
transfers of funds. On one hand, Sherwood Financial, and also her
personal bank account.

Did you do any investigation as to the reason of the transfers?
No I did not.
So you don’t know what the purpose for any of these transfers were for?
No I do not.

(Did you know that Mr. Uwaydah was involved in various real estate ventures?)
The real estate I saw, was not in his name. Again, I did not see him as owner of the properties.

Doesn’t
know what the money represented. Don’t know to what extent the money
that she kept, or what was paid out by her. Don’t know what extent,
(the funds paid to Park) represent reimbursement for expenses, that Park
may have incurred working on behalf of the doctor?
That is correct sir.

Redirect.
Did you look at the bank account to see if she sent the $400,00 she received, (went) to Ventura (county?) Real Estate Venture?

Did
not see it going out to any specific location, I did see that there was
a check written out to Kelly Park, for $300,000. Check dated 12/2/08
entered into evidence.

No further questions.

The people move to introduce their items into evidence at this time. Judge Kennedy and counsel are at sidebar.2:45 PM
Judge Kennedy is going to give the jurors a half hour break, since she has to go over several legal issues.

The
jury leaves. Judge Kennedy goes over the marking of evidence with the
people and defense. Offering the remaining exhibits into evidence.

George
Buehler doesn’t think there is any problem, but would like to go over
them for a moment before he accepts the people's evidence.

Now,
regarding defense evidence. Records are in issue in this case. An
expert who would testify about the cell phone of Juliana Redding was
turned off, for that account. Expert will say it was turned off at
10:50 PM. Then it was turned on again, later.

Buehler
argues. The people are objecting, that the (documents) are hearsay.
They were not subpoenaed in court. Don’t believe they meet the (rules).
(?) The records were turned over to us. Obtained via search warrant via
AT&T. Detective (?) and defense have assumed, that when they
were turned over, that they were genuine records of AT&T. Came
as a surprise to us today, that they will object to the testimony,
because they don’t have a witness subpoenaed from AT&T to
testify to the records.

Judge Kennedy tells the defense
that she can’t force the people to stipulate to something that they
don’t want to stipulate to. Buheler responds, that the prosecution
doesn’t want to stipulate because they don't want to have to deal with
the testimony that’s going in.

JK: I can’t force
someone to stipulate to what they don’t want to do, then you’re going to
have to subpoena someone and have them here on Wednesday.

Now, next thing.

Two
witnesses, one would be Sarah Murphy, who lived with Ms. Redding in
Marina del Rey, at the time that John Gilmore tried to get into the
apartment, via the balcony and left. That happened in 2007.

Then,
2 weeks before the murder, at the Centinela Apt., he shows up in a
rage, breaks the outside gate, and only leaves after someone called 911.

The
relevance is, the 911 call, in that it coincides pretty closely with
the neighbor (who heard Juliana screaming). This evidence provides an
alternative explanation as to what may be going on.

Text
messages between John Gilmore and Juliana Redding, that a fight was
going on. That Juliana Redding, that she would be in a frame of mind at
that time, that he was going to be coming over.

That, the noises she heard, that could have been Ms. Reddings fear, that John Gilmore could be coming over.

Judge
Kennedy responds, "That’s a lot of speculation that’s going on, just to
assume that she called 911 because of an incident that occurred 2 weeks
earlier."

Judge Kennedy continues. There’s no
evidence, that John Gilmore, was anywhere around her apartment when the
event occurred. You’re trying to bring in 3rd Party evidence (like
before). You’ve still failed to make a connection, between John Gilmore
and the event. Judge Kennedy will not allow a witness to testify for the
defense, about John Gilmore's activities unless they can show a
connection between John Gilmore, and the night that Juliana died.

The defense has three witness that will be brief. Jury will be back at 3:15 PM.

3:15 PM to 3:45 PM 3:15 PM
The gallery fills up. We wait for the jurors.

A
beautiful young black woman, her hair perfectly braided into two french
braids that come around each side of her head and down her back enters
and sits with the young friends of Juliana. She’s wearing a beautiful
white crepe, crinkled fabric, sleeveless top. Every single one of
Juliana’s friends that I’ve seen in court are beautiful women in their
own right. 3:20 PM
The gallery gets a little
restless. Judge Kennedy takes the bench. Jurors file in. Prosecution
witness #3, actor Brian Van Holt, enters behind them.3:23 PM
On the record.

Witness
lived at 1521 Centinela. She lived near Juliana Redding. Witness lived
in the next building over. Lived in a one story bungalow apartment,
Juliana was closer to the street. Her unit was deeper into the complex,
next to the alley, next door to Juliana.

She was 1521 Centinela; Juliana was 1527 Centinela. Different complexes.

On
March 15th, she remembers that Juliana Redding passed away. She
remembers it vaguely. On that Saturday, she had a conversation with
Juliana. Vaguely. She asked Juliana to come over. Juliana had something
to do later. Juliana then asked if she wanted some bowls or mugs
(plates?).

Doesn’t remember how the request started.

Doesn’t remember being interviewed by police. Buehler asks to show her the report of her interview.

As
I look down towards the other end of the courtroom, Kelly's husband,
Tom Chronister, is leaning forward, his right elbow resting on his upper
leg, his right hand on his face.

Witness asked Juliana
to come over, because it was her mom’s birthday. Juliana asked her if
she wanted some dishes. She did not get the plates. She was planning to
get those plates.

Did she call you again?
No. It sounds like the witness is about ready to cry.

Direct ends and Cross.
An
image of Juliana's apartment complex is up on the screen. This is the
image from Google Maps that was introduced earlier. Has her show on the
screen where she lived and where Juliana lived.
The dishes that Juliana were going to give her were purple.

Juliana
would walk her dog, and Juliana would end up at her house. Juliana and
her would walk their dogs together. Juliana’s dog was typically kept
inside the house. Juliana's dog would occasionally get out of the
house, then out of the fenced property and get to her house.

Did you know Juliana Redding?
I do. She was a coworker.
She was a hostess at the restaurant?
Yes. ... We became friends from there.
Did you go to her house and apartment from time to time?
Yes, I did.
The day before she passed away. Do you remember that day?
I do.
Were you at her house the night of March 14th?
(Yes.)

She
spent the night in Juliana’s bed. Both slept together in Juliana's
bed. She was there, Saturday, the morning of March 15th. Doesn’t
remember how long she was there. Up to a little before, 11 AM, she
guesses.

That morning, was there moving of furniture?
I moved her furniture around in her bedroom.

JK: This was the bedroom furniture (you moved)?
CB: I did.

Do you remember more specifically, what arrangements you did for her?
I don’t remember the design fully, what way. Moving the bed, over there.
Did you eat breakfast at the apartment?
I don’t think so.
Do you remember anything about the condition of the kitchen?
The kitchen, I don’t know.
Did you have anything to drink?
(I don’t remember?)
Did you give her any physical massage or anything like that?
No.
Did you (touch her in any way?)
I don’t think so.

Cross.
She
was out with Juliana and some friends, one of them being Brian Van
Holt. Juliana took her back to Juliana’s apartment. They slept in the
same bed on that night.

Do you recall what she was wearing that night?
I have no idea.
The bed in Juliana’s room, what size was that?
I don’t know. It definitely wasn’t a twin.
Do you remember what you were wearing?
I do not.

Redirect.
In terms of the furniture, she was giving away furniture?
She offered me a lamp. Which I was going to take but I did not.

Witness is excused.3. Sarah Murphy

I’ve seen Murphy sitting in the courtroom with Juliana's family during much of the trial.

Were you a friend of Juliana Redding?
Yes.
Did you live with her for a time in Marina del Rey?
Yes.
How long?
A year or two. Yes.
Did you know her prior?
We moved from Palos Verdes, to Marina del Rey.

What was Ms. Redding like, in letting strangers in her apartment?
Objection.Vague!
Sustained!

Do you know, from living with her, what was her attitude or practice of letting strangers into her house?
Generally she did not do that.
Would she be careful, letting strangers into her house?
(I believe she answered something to the effect of, she was pretty careful about that.)
Would she keep the door locked?
Yes.
Was there a time where Ms. Redding was living in a house in Beverly Hills?

The witness doesn’t know about that.

Cross.

When she lived in Marina del Rey did she have a dog?
No.
When she lived on Centinela, did she have a dog?
Yes.

Witness excused. Sidebar with counsel.3:44 PM
Judge
Kennedy instructs the jury that they will not be here on Tuesday.
Judge Kennedy wishes Juror #6 that her husband's surgery goes well.

Judge
Kennedy tells the jurors the status of the case. It's very possible
that the rest of testimony will happen on Wednesday, and that we may get
onto closing arguments Wednesday afternoon, or Thursday morning. It’s
very possible that the jury will get the case by Thursday afternoon or
Friday morning. The jury is ordered back at 10:30 AM.

After
the gallery thins out, I get the correct amount of the dollars that
were transferred from Frontline Medical to Parks accounts. $1,043,927.26

As
I was passing Park to exit the courtroom, I heard her ask the ABC
reporter in the room where Lisa Tomaselli was. The reporter told Park
that Lisa was in Arizona for the Arias trial. Park replied in a soft,
demur voice, “Tell her I miss her.” Park’s voice is very high pitched,
childlike.

Monday, May 20th, 2013 5:40 PM
In
court today, the prosecution has rested it's case and the defense has
presented three witnesses. Testimony will continue on Wednesday. We
could have closing arguments as early as Wednesday afternoon.

5:50 PM
A
special shout out to my friend who took the time to come to court and
sit with me today, hang out and buy me lunch. Thank you so much!

Hi Sprockett. I have been trying to be patient in regards totheaudio transcript. Any luck uploading it. Maybe I missed the link but I dont see it. Anyway maybe it is not as interesting as I thought it might be. What say you?

Anon @ 7:32 PMThe prosecution has rested it's case. Ronnie Case will not be testifying for the prosecution. There is always the possibility the prosecution will put on a rebuttal case, after the defense case. It remains to be seen who the defense will call in their case-in-chief.

Case could possibly be called by the defense, but that's not likely, IN MY OPINION. Case was originally arrested with Park, but never charged.

If Case took the stand, that opens him up to cross examination by the prosecution on his whereabouts the night of the murder.

The prosecution could grill him endlessly. That testimony could eventually be used against him. It would be a way for the prosecution to implicate him. IN MY OPINION, Case taking the stand is not a "win" for Case.

Phone records.The phone records might place Park or Case within a mile of a cell tower, but Park's DNA and fingerprint clearly place her at the scene. The phone records of Park or Case exchanging calls the night of the murder, IN MY OPINION, are not as relevant in light of the fingerprint and DNA evidence already presented.

The audio transcript.I will try to upload the transcript today and place a link to it in Day 6 as well as Day 4, when the audio was introduced at trial.

Please understand that I do have responsibilities at home and to Mr. Sprocket's business that must come first before my trial reporting coverage.

Totally understand Sprocket and was trying to be patient. I have been watching you since i too became hooked on courtroom drama with the Phil Spector trial. You have and continue to do a wonderful job on your own and have come so far in your blogging. I have the utmost respect for you and the personal sacrifice you have made to cover these cases and help us junkies out here get our fix. I do also understand these are real lives and have respect for all the victims who you help to tell their side of the story and to never forget. Praises for all your efforts!! Sorry for being pushy but I am from Camarillo and can't get over the murderers we seem to have here in town that you have covered. Small nice area but dirty secrets lie behind closed doors more than I care to think about. Again Thank you and take care of yourself as well as the Mr. and I will look forward to your coverage when you are able to get to it.

Wow Sprocket, I am shocked by the time frame the judge is eluding to on this case finishing up so quickly. I realize the defense does not have a whole lot to work with and they are clearly not finished yet but with only one more day of testimony for the defense I just can't reason why they wouldn't be trying something,anything else. Since you are there what is your take on defense position? I understand they had a lot of so called evidence they couldn't get in so do you think they are laying down and then planning on using those rulings in an appeal? I can't imagine they aren't at least trying to attack the integrity/collection of the DNA evidence somehow. You are seeing them first hand, does it look like they are trying that approach or any approach at all? Curious as to your take on the defense in general.

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Readers To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process. We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion.

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.